holding that, when a named citizen informant initiates a report based on a personal observation to a police officer, that citizen is presumed to be credible and reliable, because the citizen is subjecting himself or herself to potential civil liability
How later courts described this case
- holding that, when a named citizen informant initiates a report based on a personal observation to a police officer, that citizen is presumed to be credible and reliable, because the citizen is subjecting himself or herself to potential civil liability
- discussing some relevant factors in assessing credibility of informant and reliability of information
- discussing rationale for deeming named citizen informant reliable when that citizen initiates a report of a crime to a law enforcement agency
- establishing a higher evidentiary standard for probable cause determinations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with that part of the dissent of Lent, J., which holds that the naming of the informant alone is insufficient to prove his probable veracity, that the affidavit is therefore defective, and that the majority opinion’s so-called additional factors are nothing more than an argument that name alone is sufficient and is an example of pulling one’s self up by one’s bootstraps.